Patriot Act undercuts constitutional protections

Patriot Act undercuts constitutional protections
EDITOR:
The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights was designed to eliminate writs of assistance. Writs of assistance are blanket search warrants that allow government authorities to search without restraint. America's first painful experience with writs of assistance was during colonial times under British rule. The colonist came to hate the invasion of privacy and destruction of property that occurred under the writs of assistance that were used by the British. The wording of the Fourth Amendment was carefully drawn from the painful experience of our colonial forbears.
The Fourth Amendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oaths or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized."
The Patriot Act contains within its provisions an item called National Security Letters. These letters allow the FBI and other government authorities to conduct searches in an unrestrained manner. The FBI can conduct a search without the approval of a judge, grand jury or a prosecutor. Thus our own government has reintroduced the writs of assistance that the Fourth Amendment was designed to eliminate.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All federal laws such as the Patriot Act must be in compliance with it. The Patriot Act clearly violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing unrestrained searches.
The original Patriot Act was rushed through Congress so fast that many of the members voted on it without reading it.
Contact your elected representatives, tell your elected representatives that you oppose warrantees searches, and that you oppose the renewal of the Patriot Act.
CY FURLAN
New Wilmington, Pa
Time to stop blame game
EDITOR:
Blame, blame, blame -- it is time to stop. There is enough blame to go around as it is. If there is an agenda to all this, it certainly is not apparent. What is apparent is that we have a substantial military presence in a foreign land, and our service men and women are being wounded, maimed, and yes, even killed. In a sense we started this conflagration, and it is up to us to stop it.
Does that mean that we should withdraw? By no means, but, it is essential that we begin to look to how this is to be ended. First and foremost there can be no time table for withdrawal. It would serve no useful purpose. What there must be is a statement of conditions that must be met to determine when we will leave Iraq. The conditions must be spelled out in no uncertain terms, and in several languages if necessary.
It is up to the powers that be to enunciate what those conditions are. Then make it known to the Iraqis, and to the world. The United Nations, especially, should be made aware of what we expect to take place in Iraq for a satisfactory conclusion of this episode in the history of our country, with which we can all live.
It will be up to future historians to determine if there is any blame to assign to anyone, and how much. It is up to us at this time, being honorable men and women in an honorable country to bring this conflict to a just conclusion, and the sooner the better.
LEONARD J. SAINATO
Warren
Cheap at twice the price
EDITOR:
Tell me again how many public tax dollars were used to build the Youngstown Convocation Center. Now tell me again how many Chevrolet dollars erased Youngstown's name from potentially the largest bright spot in Youngstown's recent history. The math just doesn't add up. Youngstown got cheated. Taxpayers got cheated. Congress appropriated tax dollars to promote Youngstown, not Chevrolets.
DOUGLAS FARKAS
Youngstown